New Relativity

[arkain101]

This theory was developed and posted 1:20am , saturday, october 15, 2005 by Nicholis Justin Hill.

 

email adress:

[email protected]

[email protected]

 

Mailing address:

1655 Aveling Coalmine Rd

Telkwa, British Columbia, Canada

V0J 2X3

 

Phone number:

(250)846-5968

 

 

 

 

 

 

Realistic Relativity

 

 

I want to start off with a hypothetical situation that explains how velocity and kenetic energy can not exist without more than one object. I will then move on to explain what happens once a hypothetical universe has more than one atom/object.

 

I want you to imagine a chalk board which represents space. There is a few atoms floating around in this space. Now, let's erase all of the other atoms and draw a single hydrogen atom. Now all that exists in this empty vacume is 1 atom. Hypothetically lets say this atom wants to travel around and find another atom to interact with. It floats here, than over there, than over here, but then it soon realizes it has no way of knowing how fast it is going and infact, no matter how much effort it puts into going fast, it still has no calcuable velocity. The atom has nothing to compare its velocity with. There is nothing in this hypothetical universe for this atom to interact with so this atom has no kinetic energy. The only way for it to be able to attain energy is to have another or object in the path or close area of the hydrogen atom (a reference point). Now we draw a second hydrogen atom. Once this is done we now have a universe with the ability to have motion, energy, aswell as velocity. These two atoms are now on a direct path for eachother, closing the distance between them at 10m/s. Although, it is impossible to tell which object is doing the motion simply because it depends if you are looking from object A and seeing object B come at you or looking from object B and seeing A come at you. Each atom sees the other coming towards them at 10m/s. (We assume zero energy is lost in this thought experiment). Each atom in its own reference frame assumes itself to be stationary and has zero velocity, but assumes the other atom is coming towards it at 10m/s or, vice versa, Each atom assumes they are heading towards the other atom at 10m/s and that the other atom is at rest. When the collision occurs, there is a brief moment where all the velocities are zero and no kenetic energy is apparent. Then, each attom feels a force (which does not matter if it feels foward or back for an atom). They each think they have either hit the other atom and sent the other flying away or have been hit by the other atom and now are fly away from eachother at 10m/s. It becomes apparent that there is no possible way to calculate which particle was the oringinal one in motion or even if they were both in motion. One atom could of been traveling 90m/s and the other could of been following it at 80m/s. The only fact is that there was an interaction between the two at a measured velocity of10m/s. Which is likewise applied to an entire universe coming near another universe. Each atom apparently thinks they each hit eachother at 10m/s. Here we have a situation where it is possible for the interaction to have occured at 20m/s.

 

Here we a drawing of this thought experiment with and the data representing each reference frame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moving on to Example A.

 

A 100kg ship takes off from earth to the moon and stops at the halfway point. It then measures from its reference frame to these two reference points and assumes to have zero velocity and in turn zero kinetic energy and affirms it is stopped(when we exclude the other of the visible objects in space).

 

E=1/2(M*Vsquared)

 

E=1/2(100*0squared)=0

 

It is stated that when you double your velocity (velocity refering to when we measure distance divided by time) it takes 4 times the distance to stop

than it does to stop when traveling half the velocity because your energy becomes 4 times greater each time you double your velocity.At this point the ship is at 0m/s according to the two reference points. There is not a possible way to go double than 0m/s and figure out if its energy increases 4 times, so the ship decides to start traveling at 1m/s to have somewhere to start this experiment. E=1/2(100*1squared)=50joules, as of now it has 50 times the energy it previously had at 0m/s. According to the ship it is leaving earth at 1m/s and also heading towards the moon at 1m/s. Each second that passes on the clock in the ship it covers 1 meter towards the moon and 1 meter away from earth covering a total of 2 meters when using the two reference points. The ship then doubles its velocity to 2m/s.

E=1/2(100*2squared) and now has 200joules of energy. 50x4=200, now it does have 4 times the energy because it doubled its velocity from 1m/s to 2m/s. But, now each second that passes by it covers 2 meters closer to the moon and 2 meters further from earth, covering a total of 4 meteres/second!. We apply that calculation E=1/2(100*4squared) and aparently now it has 800joules of energy, twice than before when it was only measuring velocity towards the moon. Now for a moment let us erase the earth from this experiment. The ship calculates it is now still

traveling 2m/s towards the moon by measuring how much distance it covers towards the moon or how much distance the moon is covering

towards the ship divided by the time. There is a person on the moon that measures the same calculations as the ship has. The ship then speeds

up to 4m/s again doubling its velocity. E=1/2(100X4squared)=800joules. It has now gained 4 times the energy that was calculated when going 2m/s towards the moon. Now I want to disect the equation and apply it to the experiment.

(V1) Velocity 1= the ship

(V2) Velocity 2=the moon

(M) Mass = the mass of the ship

At this point the ship and the moon are closing in at eachother at 4m/s according to today.

E=1/2(M*V1*V2)

E=1/2(100*4*4)=800joules again.

The equation says the moon and the SHIP are each traveling at eachother at 4m/s for a total combined speed of 8m/s also, according to E=1/2(M*Vsquared). The ship begins closing in near the moon. We now assume the ship is a solid ultra hardened ball of titanium (or any other kind of strong element that has the ability NOT to lose any energy during an impact) and the moon is likewise a solid ultra hardended ball of the same material and has a mass of 100,000,000,000kg's(or otherwise enought to not move). (now using physics today) The ship hits the moon square on dead center carrying E=1/2(100*4squared)=800joules. The inertia of the moon is so great that we assume it does not react to the ship hitting it. For a brief moment the ship is at 0m/s and has zero kenetic energy. Next the ship rebounds in the exact opposite direction at 4m/s away from the moon, and has now attained 800joules of energy again. From 800 joules to 0joules back to 800joules in the opposite direction. This we call the conservation of momentum/energy and when you add it up there was a total of 1600 jouls of energy involved to accomplish this task. Remember how we squared the velocity of the moon and the ship in previous equation (E=1/2(M*Vsquared) to figure out how much energy was in 1 object (the ship)

Using this equation, E=M*V1*V2 . E=100*4*4= 1600joules, equal to the total energy required to cause the ship to reverse direction like it did. This eqution (E=M*V1*V2) shows an object traveling towards another object has the potential to inflict the energy of E=M*Vsquared or E=M*V1*V2. With the 1/2 removed from the normal kenetic equation we understand that the conservation of energy or momentum(?) is the fact stating that two objects heading towards eachother are each coming towards eachother at the same speed for a potential energy force of twice the interpreted energy when using the Velocity of useing V= D/T. (which refers only from point A to B and exludes the other reference frame). So the reason for energy increasing 4 times when a velocity increases double is because the reference point in front of you is also coming at you the same speed.

 

Here is a drawing of a similar experiment where ball B can not be moved.

 

 

 

Application of my theory on E=mc squared:

 

-Energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared in todays physics to determine how much energy is contained within atoms of a peice matter.

-Every action has an equal and opposite reaction as verified above.

-Light has the ability to apply force to all mass and can be affected by gravity.

-The speed of light is 300,000m/s and is considered to be a universal constant as we know it today.

 

It is just as possible that the force in which emmits the light is constant. This says that whatever causes the emmition of light must always have a constant mass. The force involved to cause light to travel at 300,000km/sec will cause the object emitting the light to experience the same force upon it, saying that there is a force faster than C, if we assume the source is the close to the same mass of a light particle. Cirtain physics forumlas show that when an object reaches the speed of light its mass increases towards infinaty and in turn to push this object you need an infinate force rendering the task impossible. Also physics today says time dialation will occur. The time it takes to get to a destination will be shorter in your reference frame. Aswell as a length contraction will occur which I do not fully understand except for distance appears to be decreased. If my theory is applied here, it is reasonably explained that the point in which you would aproach the speed of light in a ship(body of mass) you would be traveling twice the speed you would expect to be towards your destination at the same twice the speed away from your original point but not any more than two times in total. Your kenetic energy using E=(M*Vsquared) becomes much higher (infact double) than before explaining why mass would be interpreted to increase. As for maxing out at the speed of C, this could reasonably be explained that if you were using the fastest source in the universe we know of (which is light that travels at C) to power a ship using a light ejecting engine to reach the speed of C the force would eventually be split between the two objects or the speed of ship moving forward and the light leaving the engine would match putting a stop to all acceleration.

 

 

When a nuclear bomb does not release the same energy that E=mc^2 would tell you. It can logically be explained that the force that comes out of the bomb must apply the same equal opposite force inwards on the bomb causing a loss in excpected energy.

 

Conclusion of Realistic Relativity by:

 

Nicholis Justin Hill (Nick Hill)

[ANDYH]

Oh My God You've Done It

[Torson]

Nicholis,

Obviously you have just started to wonder about relativity and its implications in physics, and it shows good initiative to question many of todays theories as they have not landed as absolute facts.

But in order to question the accuracy or correctness of the theories it is a must to fully understand the theories, their background and the details of all the parameters expressed by letters and numbers in their equations.

Although it is probably not the best starting point but the best known: E=mcsquared, and fully understand E (energy), m (mass) and c (speed of light in vacuum). This should keep you occupied for a long time.

As for the theory: who in this world has proven that light is “pushed” from a mass with a resulting retardation on the mass?

[CraigD]

Nicholis, Please take this in the spirit of helpfulness in which is it intended.

 

Your writing, while enthusiastic and tenacious, consists almost entirely of statements which are simply wrong, in ways any one with a reasonably good Math and Science education can convincingly demonstrate. The structure of your writing is too informal, and fails to lead to scientifically testable conjectures. The amount of effort required to explanation the basic Math, Science, and principles of scientific writing in which you’re deficient is prohibitive. While this forum is dedicated in part to helping young scientists further their education, it’s not an adequate replacement for a traditional program of science education.

 

You need such a program. The ideas you are interested in simply require it.

 

Although there are many ways to obtain such an education, with the internet providing an increasingly valuable resource, in my opinion the best and most accessible way is through traditional, brick and mortar colleges and universities. Such a path can be long, trying, and expensive, but is necessary, and one that essentially all effective scientists have been through. All of its intellectual and financial hurtles are surmountable.

 

In one of your first posts, you said “I have no access to a university where I live.” If this is true, I suggest you move to a place where it is not. In others, you mention that your academic record, health, and financial situation are less than ideal. Many people have met and overcome barriers of these kind – personally, I’ve had a few academic black marks, and have endured several periods of the financial status these days referred to as “homeless.”

 

As long as you’re not discourteous, you’ll be allowed to continue posting your ideas here – this is a very open and tolerant community - but I fear they’ll not be taken very seriously. My wish is to hear from you in a couple of years, when you’re well on your way to having a sound Math and Science education.

[UncleAl]

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)

http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml

No aether

 

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7

No Lorentz violation

 

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

Remaining allowable Lorentz violations - none observed to date

 

Special Relativity is Newton less gravitation rederived assuming lightspeed is finite rather than infinite (i.e., making Newton consistent with Maxwell),

 

Annalen der Physik 4 XVII 891-921 (1905)

http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm

http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf

Longitudinal and transverse mass (corrects error in the Annalen article)

 

Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.

 

The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It defines the coupling constants of your theory. If you change the metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic (non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.

The equation says the moon and the earth are each traveling at eachother at

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0507083

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024

Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)

Nordtvedt Effect

Light has the ability to apply force to all mass and can be affected by gravity.

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014

Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)

Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)

falling light

The speed of light is 300,000m/s and is considered to be a universal constant as we know it today.

http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!

299,792,458 m/sec EXACTLY.

The force involved to cause light to travel at 300,000km/sec

Look up the relationship of the permitivity and permeability of free space to lightspeed.

Conclusion of Realistic Relativity

"ACK! THBBFT!"

You've got some reading to do.

[arkain101]

I just read over the string theory and it appears to be a identical branch theory that I have also come up with. Interesting.

I find my theory(this one posted here) to seem to describe the reality of a string theory molecular world unity. That is why I also came up with a similar theory that goes down to the insides of the insides of atomic material resulting in one identical object which connects to its partners to form whole objects resulting in the function of our reality. In fact this fundemental particle that can be manifested in different ways is the one source that we refer to when even religiously we refer to ourselves as all a part of one being.

As we know the universe is infinate in size or infinate in which size it is provided to grow, likewise the universe is infinatly small. You will never find the end of the smallness, which leads to thinking that the infinatly big and small universe is a function of one.

 

The most exciting part about this is, If this theory does stand true, it would mean taking the first steps to a higher level of intelligence / conciousness. This theory, results in the fact that everything can be just as close to you as it is far away and the speed at which you travel towards it depicts the distance. Velocity would be handle that brings the universe together, likewise, what velocity is, is the coming together of the universe. Yet also the leaving behind or expansion of a section of universe.

Way too funny this string theory is very much like mine.

 

Here is the string theory with a nice explanation http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html

[arkain101]

Here is another quick picture to see what I am talking about.

As you travel towards a somthing that work does two things.

The top diagram shows two tape measures that each weigh 5kg and the tape from each one loops around a pully and connect to the other tape measure. and when you move one, the other object goes too, the tape measures do not extend or pull in.

 

Diagram two, has an object tied to two tape measures. when it moves 1meter it moves a +1m and -1m.. doubling the distance of the work just like above.

 

[Torson]

Nicholis, Please do not embarrass yourself further, please, please read the comments above, they are truly well meant.

[arkain101]

I have just realized another aspect to all of this. This might explain gravity.

 

Kinetic energy.

 

We say that when an object has zero velocity (0m/s), it has zero kinetic energy. That statement says that the object is at absolute rest. This is impossible to state because, there is no absoulte rest. In our solar system it is impossible to have zero velocity because gravity will always be acting on an object, plus the fact, all objects are in motion when refering to the rest of the universe, so nothing is at 0m/s velocity.

 

This clarifies we can not call anything to have zero energy. There is no hypothecial place where objects are not affected by gravity.

 

Everything must have a constant energy or velocity which will have to be constant of gravity source. Lets call this constant 1. This means GRAVITY is the constant kenetic energy that exists in all matter. So if we think of 1 as rest (like an object sitting on earth). Then calculate with the kinetic energy equations, we realize no matter what you do matter always has kenetic energy (or maybe better described as potential energy) (aka gravity). When you create distance between two objects they both attract eachother and impact with 4times the energy of what would be calculated of a solo object traveling through space.

Gravity is the constant of matter containing velocity at rest (equalling 1 the neverending KE force). Which is why on earth everything sticks together because GRAVITY IS REST, yet it has to be considered something other than 0 because there is no absolute rest in the universe.!!

 

There has to be a infinte force or matter, (like the string theory) that reaches to all other objects. It is said that if two objects existed in space and they were the only two, and they had a distance of for example, 100miles between them, over enough time they would come together with an attracting force. There must be a fiber / fabric that is connected to all objects in the universe. Excluding space/time physics.

[arkain101]

If you are in a empty square room and have your back against the wall, and the wall in front of you is 10meters away. Then, you half way across the room. Now measure how far you walked by measure how close the wall is in front of you. The wall in front says you are 5m closer to it.. So, 10-5 = you walked 5m. Now turn around, and measure the distance between you and the wall where you started from. 0+5m = 5m. In total it says you have walked 10m or in other words, the world and you together covered 10m of distance.

This is beacause you are always going twice the velocity you think you are. Every time you half you velocity, you lose 4 times the energy. Keep Halving your velocity untill you come to the stage before having an apparent rest (when looking at it from a object being dropped) . At this point your energy will be 4times greater than at the rest stage. It is always 4times greater if you double your speed because you are going twice as fast as you think. If you are traveling 100km/h in a car you have 4 times the energy you do when you are going 50km/h.

Our interpretation of velocity has always been half of what it really is.

[arkain101]

Check this equation for me. Kenetic energy.

 

E=(M x V) x ( M x V) / (2 x M)

 

or

Ek= 1/2(M x Vsquared)

[dasraiser]

hi arkain101

 

ok so what your saying is

 

if i have a room 2s in size which is 10m across

and travel for 1s(5m from the wall to 5m of the far wall) you say i will cover 10m, which shows i traveled 10m/s, how's this possible? ;) ;)

 

what about this...

the turtle and the athlete, if the turtle runs 0.5m/s and the athlete 5m/s and with a handy cap of 100m start for the turtle, how many seconds does it take the athlete to catch up with the turtle? ;)

 

regards

[arkain101]

if i have a room 2s in size which is 10m across

and travel for 1s(5m from the wall to 5m of the far wall) you say i will cover 10m, which shows i traveled 10m/s, how's this possible?

 

Normally that would be worked out as you traveling from the wall to where you are at 5m/s. But really, Yes exactly, you did travel at 10m/s. That is why your energy is 4 times that of half your speed always right down to 0. Velocity has always been measure half of what it really is, that is why we need to square it in the Ke equation Vsquared, because the destination comes at you the same speed your origin point leaves you.

[dasraiser]

ok if u have

 

a b c and b is going away from a to c

 

it is (c-a)-(b-a) from a and (c-;)-(c-a) from c

 

so

 

((c-a)-(b-a))+((c-;)-(c-a)) = 0 which shows the observer(frame) as being on b

 

if however i being b(and this is incorrect) travel

 

(b-a)+(c-;) or 2*b if b=1/2(c-a) (as you suggested)

 

then to arrive at b=1/2(c-a) distance, all objects would have to start at b and move 1/2(c-a) away from b giving your total of (b-a)+(c-;) which is in fact the distance between a and c if b is 1/2(c-a), and yes they would appear to travel at half velocity from b, but b would be stationary.

 

i don't think there is any form of two frames of reference being observed from one frame anywhere! mmm maybe if the frame of reference was the center of all frames of all frames of things in the universe..

 

argh this is just pure nonsense.;)

 

regards

[arkain101]

erased

[arkain101]

erased

[arkain101]

erased